Ex-communist Europe

Orientophobia

What we feel

I HAVE just been at the Lennart Meri Conference in Tallinn which I feel sets the standard for security shindigs (see here for the agenda), and not only because the organisers let me chair two sessions (disclosure: they paid my flight and hotel). The theme was "Making Values Count". Topics included

Libya: what are we in for?;

EU Foreign Policy: Failing, Flailing or Finding Its Feet?;

Be Careful What You Wish For: Russia's Multipolar Blues;

Lostpolitik: Can Germany Rise to Its Leadership Challenge?;

Russia's Leadership and 2012: Election, Selection or Ejection?; and

Europe's Energy Security: Geopolitics, Credibility and Corruption.

One of the highlights was a speech by the Estonian president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves (seen earlier sitting on the floor in a particularly packed session: name any other country where the head of state does that).

The title was "Getting to Turkey or Aquaria from Fish Soup". The latter reference is to a famous quote sometimes attributed to Lech Wałęsa but actually from Adam Michnik. It was memorably used by Estonia's first post-1991 president, Lennart Meri, in his address to the UN in 1993. It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, which is what Communism did to the countries on which it was imposed. It is rather harder to reverse the process.

The theme was reflections on the revolutions in North Africa from the point of view of one of the most successful ex-communist countries. Mr Ilves (Swedish-born and American-raised) is a former journalist, well-read with an acerbic turn of phrase. It was well on display in his speech. His launch-pad was a paraphrase of the opening line in Anna Karenina: "All successful post-despotic countries reformed alike. Each unsuccessful country finds its own excuse.” Successfully overthrowing a despotic regime is just the first step:

That was the quick, and deceptively often, the easy part. Everything else that we consider to be the essence of creating a democracy: institution building, establishment of rule of law, development of civic society, fundamental rights and freedoms, economic growth, low corruption, turned out to take years and a lot of effort and political capital and will.

He continued with a sobering reminder of the limits of what is often seen wrongly as the triumph of 1989:

Plagued by corruption and kleptocratic rule, or subject to de-ideologised but still authoritarian despotism, it is a depressing empirical truth that most citizens of countries that escaped communist totalitarianism twenty years ago today remain under some kind of undemocratic rule. Indeed, of those 400 million (400 million!) people living in countries that comprised the audience of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, three quarters live today under rule rated by Freedom House as “Un-free” of “Partially free”. While these citizens are arguably better off than a generation ago, they still live as subjects, not as free citizens.

And with this historical perspective:

Today, as the world watches fascinated—and in some cases, horrified—at popular rebellions against authoritarian rule in Northern Africa and in parts of the Arab world, what we here in the post-communist world sense first and foremost is déjā vu. We recognize ourselves just a generation ago. The feeling of now or never, the sense that at long last there is a chance to throw off the stagnant and thuggish rule that has held us back or been on our back for decades. An exhilaration at success, bewilderment at how weak tyranny turned out to be and how quickly the despotic clique that decades for decades had brutalized the citizenry collapsed, gave up or fled. To our democratic colleagues in Egypt and elsewhere, I would say: Cherish these emotions; they will be touchstones.

But the main thrust of the speech was not to advise the revolutionaries ("East Europeans" have plenty of experience with unwanted and often bad advice from outside). It was to lambast the prejudice that the secure, rich countries of the western half of the continent manifest towards the east and south alike. He drew a comparison with what Edward Said called "Orientalism": the idea that the Arab east is exotic and different, definitely backward and probably dangerous. He cited this comment, from a former president of the European Parliament on the eve of EU enlargement, as a prime example

The forthcoming enlargement is not comparable to any previous one. This is true not only–and not primarily–because of the immense gulf between the West and the potential East of the Union in terms of the standard of living. More important is that the citizens and the politicians of the Central and Eastern European countries differ fundamentally from those in the present EU Member States as regards their national emotional traditions, experiences, interests and value judgments. What needs to be overcome here is not only the legacy of 50 years of separate development but also far older and more fundamental differences rooted in European history.

Mr Ilves was too polite to name names, but a quick bit of research suggests that the person concerned was Klaus Hansch (however I can't find the exact quote in English). He continued:

I could say that is one of the silliest, crypto-racist, indeed orientalist things I have encountered, except it is not. It's just part of the narrative we in Central and Eastern Europe have endured for almost a quarter century, from „Lazy Latvians“ working for Laval in Sweden to „Polish Plumbers“ in Paris to Post-soviet, emotionally traumatized, hence foreign policy challenged Estonians right here in Tallinn. I mention all this to shame those that treated us that way, to chasten those of us who might behave the same way to others and to warn our democratic brethren in Northern Africa that even when you do your best, there will be those in Europe who don't get it. As the Turks well know.

He concluded:

Those who inherited a functioning democracy without having to fight to create it don't quite know what it means; those who had to build it do. I hope we who do know what it means are willing to work together with democrats in the Arab world to build their democracies. That we appreciate their sacrifices and now extend our hand to them… if we are asked.

I feel slightly sorry for whomever is asked to give next year's conference keynote. Mr Ilves has set a high bar.

Readers' comments

Of course, comparisons are always tricky. But they work both ways. One can find many differences between countries also within EE.

All I want to say is that we, Eastern Europeans, should work (emphasis on WORK) to be more prosperous societies and fill the gap between EE and WE, rather than take a defensive approach (pres. Ilves' standpoint) and complain about traumatizations and humiliations etc. committed by Western Europe.

I think you are too optimistic with these 50 years. It may take even longer...

You are right, Sweden may not be the best example. Let's take stock of Poland's western neighbour, Germany. They lost 2 world wars. Paid huge reparations to the allies (although Germany was also included in the Marshall plan). And what? Now they are the 2nd biggest Western economy in the world.
Again, it is the respect for law, respect for other people, sharing with others (instead of reaching a hand for money) and other "old-fashioned" values is what makes societies prosperous, not complaining about ungrateful and disrepectful politicians from Western Europe.

As a Pole, I should like Pres. Ilves's opinion on Eastern Europeans but I think he's not right. Democracy (or any other sort of government) is as good as the people who make it. It is always easy to fall into a trap of generalizations, but I think that the weakest element at least in Poland, is the low level of what I would call social capital (respect for others, respecting the law, thinking long term etc.). Whoeaver will visit Poland and, say, Sweden will notice the difference. It is not prejudice, it is truth.
If we (Eastern Europeans) want to improve our situation we should start from improving ourselves instead of putting the blame on external forces. In fact, such a defensive approach is (unfortunately) an illustration of a post-colonial syndrome.

Going from communism to democracy and from statist socialism to market capitalism can be a relatively quick, indeed revolutionary process.

However, changing peoples' mind sets is quite another matter. Its evolutional. The most appropriate example that I can think of is that of Moses leading his (Jewish) people out of Egypt to the "land of milk and honey) - Israel. Why did he take 40 years to walk what is about 250-300 km, ie a 10-14 days walk? Because all those who had been born, brought up in and remembered Egypt with all psychological consequences had to pass away. Central Eastern Europe both within the EU and NATO and without is only 21 years into that 40 year cycle. Its noticeable that those who have been accepted into the EU and NATO have progressed much faster than those who have not been integrated.

The Arab States are only at the very beginning of the 2 generations process........

There is. in fact, a clear border between East and West in Europe along the lines sketched by Mr. Hansch in terms of profound historical and cultural differences that go all the way back to the division of the Roman Empire -- except that the border between these two parts is the one drawn by Huntington, and not by Hansch himself. In this sense Mr. Ilves is clearly right, as the culture and traditions of his own country are firmly rooted in the Western Civilization. On other accounts he is, unfortunately, very wrong, especially with regard to the commotion in Arab countries, which will inevitably all end up being Salafist theocracies.

Mr. Ilves is unjustified in complaining about supposed West European "crypto-rasist" and "orientalist" attitudes. Haven't CEE countries been admitted to the EU, Nato and other western institutions, generally on good faith of future improvement (e.g. Romania and Bulgaria)?

Mr. Ilves would do better to consider the bigoted treatment of minorities in his own country.

Hilarious, great speech. In 2013 we in the Czech Republic will finally get rid of Václav Klaus - I believe there is a good point in granting Mr Ilves Czech citizenship and offering him a possibility to be our President. Three remarkable persons came from the Baltic States in last two decades - Mart Laar, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga and Toomas Hendrik Ilves and I really envy Estonia and Latvia that they have them.

Sounds like yet another situation that is really about the eternal struggle between socialism and capitalism.

When the Eastern countries are ready to stop blaming the West for their problems, and are ready to stop expecting the West to "do something"; when they accept that they are to blame themselves for their weaknesses and bad choices of social systems that then harm and enslave them, then they will have become mature democracies. Some of them are already far along that path.

@Zet23, I don't get it why you feel these kind of comparisons are useful, imo they aren't, always too many changeables to make it somehow educative. Or do you want to make the point Ilves critisized. But if at all - one should rather compare to former GDR, no?

@zet23
I think it may be a bit unfair to compare Sweden and Poland and other CE countries in terms of social capital. Sweden had a few centuries of peace and stable growth to build trust between citizens, whereas we in Central Europe have it much harder. And unfortunately we only started twenty years ago. I have read somewhere (if somebody here has some orientation in this matter, please share) that complete change in social attitudes takes about 50 years. So its still a long way to go.

Remarkable that these words come from a man who has done a lot of effort to portray his country as 'Nordic' and has done so partly by insulting countries like Latvia, which according to some Estonian politians is 'Eastern' European with all the negative connotations they attribute to it.

There are two fundamental problems: a) the 'extended hand' traditionally, over generations, was seen by most Arabs as one reaching for oil and gas with little, if any, concern about how the realm was governed and who got the benefits. It goes without saying that the new European democracies will have VERY difficult time attempting to change deep-rooted habits of the 'old' European democracies; b) as to the 'democrats in the Arab world', well, does anyone have a searchlight powerful enough to find them ? And that despite the well known fact that thousands of bright young Arabs have bee educated in the best Western universities.